DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 17/747,239 was filed 5/18/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 3/3/2023 and 4/12/2024 were previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 3/16/2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, and 19 have been amended. Claims 5 and 14 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 are novel in view of the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-4 and 6-9, are directed to a machine and the method, as claimed in claims 10-13 and 15-19, are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1)
Claim 10, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
extracting at least one keyword from a first user input by a user, the first user input is a search term;
determining, from the at least one keyword, a stem keyword;
determining, from the at least one keyword, one or more additional limitations extracted from the first user input;
conducting an initial search based on the stem keyword;
storing raw search results of the initial search;
determining a plurality of filters associated with the at least one keyword, the plurality of filters being stored;
matching the one or more additional limitations to the plurality of filters;
applying matched filters to the raw search results before determining exposed filters;
determining at least one filter groups, each of the at least one filter groups contains at least one of the plurality of filters;
determining a ranking for each of the at least one filter groups based on a usefulness score;
providing, based on the ranking, a first subset of the plurality of filters as exposed filters for the first user input;
saving an arrangement of the first subset of the plurality of filters for the first user input as an original saved filter configuration;
providing a search result based on the stem keyword and matched additional limitations;
receiving a second user input, wherein the second user input is a selection of one of the plurality of filters;
in response to the second user input, applying the one of the plurality of filters;
determining an applicability of remaining filters of the plurality of filters;
updating the ranking of the at least one filter groups, based on the second user input;
maintaining the arrangement of the first subset of the plurality of filters;
updating the search result; and
regenerating the plurality of filters, wherein the regenerated plurality of filters comprises the first subset of the plurality of filters in the maintained arrangement, wherein each regenerated filter is compared to the original saved filter configuration, and wherein a regenerated filter that was applicable in the original saved filter configuration and is no longer applicable after regeneration is displayed as unavailable and unselectable while the maintained arrangement is preserved.
Claim 19 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
extracting at least one keyword from a first user input by a user, the first user input is a search term;
determining, among the at least one keyword, a stem keyword;
wherein the search result is based on the stem keyword;
determining, among the at least one keyword, user-defined limitations;
conducting an initial search based on the stem keyword;
storing raw search results of the initial search;
determining a plurality of filters associated with the at least one keyword, the plurality of filters being stored;
searching for a pre-determined filter configuration;
matching the user-defined limitations to the plurality of filters;
applying the matched filters to the raw search results before determining exposed filters;
determining a ranking for each of the plurality of filters; wherein:
each of the plurality of filters are assigned a usefulness score stored; and
the ranking is based on the usefulness score that is calculated from at least one of generated revenue, generated profit, and special promotions;
determining at least one filters in a first subset of the plurality of filters being parallel options;
arranging the parallel options in a group;
saving the arrangement of the parallel options in the group;
providing, based on the ranking, the first subset of the plurality of filters as exposed filters for the first user input;
saving an arrangement of the first subset of the plurality of filters for the first user input as an original saved filter configuration;
providing a search result based on the stem keyword and matched additional limitations;
providing, when selected, displays all of the plurality of filters;
receiving a second user input, wherein the second user input is a selection of one of the plurality of filters;
in response to the second user input, applying the one of the plurality of filters;
updating the ranking of the remaining of the plurality of filters;
updating the usefulness score based on the second user input by predicting, based on the second user input, a third user input;
maintaining the arrangement of the first subset of the plurality of filters;
updating the search result; and
regenerating the plurality of filters by:
determining an applicability of the remaining filters of the plurality of filters;
determining, based on the applicability of the remaining of the plurality of filters, a second subset of the plurality of filters;
maintaining, the first subset of the plurality of filters in the maintained arrangement regardless of the applicability of the filter in the first subset of the plurality of filters;
maintaining the arrangement of the parallel options in the group; and
updating the second subset of the plurality of filters as unavailable,
wherein each regenerated filter is compared to the original saved filter configuration, and wherein a regenerated filter that was applicable in the original saved filter configuration and is no longer applicable after regeneration is displayed as unavailable and unselectable while the maintained arrangement is preserved.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claims 10 and 19 are certain methods of organizing human activity because providing search results and search filters to a user based on a user query is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations.
Thus, claims 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 10. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claim 1 as described above for independent claim 10.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 10 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
extracting at least one keyword from a first user input from a user device by a user, the first user input is a search term;
determining, from the at least one keyword, a stem keyword;
determining, from the at least one keyword, one or more additional limitations extracted from the first user input;
conducting an initial search based on the stem keyword;
storing, in a cache, raw search results of the initial search;
determining a plurality of filters associated with the at least one keyword, the plurality of filters being stored on at least one storage;
matching the one or more additional limitations to the plurality of filters;
applying matched filters to the raw search results before determining exposed filters;
determining at least one filter groups, each of the at least one filter groups contains at least one of the plurality of filters;
determining a ranking for each of the at least one filter groups based on a usefulness score;
providing, based on the ranking, a first subset of the plurality of filters as exposed filters for the first user input;
saving an arrangement of the first subset of the plurality of filters for the first user input to the cache as an original saved filter configuration;
providing, to the user device, a search result based on the stem keyword and matched additional limitations;
receiving a second user input from the user device, wherein the second user input is a selection of one of the plurality of filters;
in response to the second user input, applying the one of the plurality of filters;
determining an applicability of remaining filters of the plurality of filters;
updating the ranking of the at least one filter groups, based on the second user input;
maintaining, by fetching from the cache, the arrangement of the first subset of the plurality of filters;
updating, to the user device, the search result; and
regenerating the plurality of filters, wherein the regenerated plurality of filters comprises the first subset of the plurality of filters in the maintained arrangement, wherein each regenerated filter is compared to the original saved filter configuration, and wherein a regenerated filter that was applicable in the original saved filter configuration and is no longer applicable after regeneration is displayed as unavailable and unselectable while the maintained arrangement is preserved.
Independent claim 1 recites the additional elements (additional elements are bolded) of at least one storage device comprising instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions in addition to the additional elements already addressed in the rejection for independent claim 10.
Independent claim 19 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
extracting at least one keyword from a first user input from a user device by a user, the first user input is a search term;
determining, among the at least one keyword, a stem keyword;
wherein the search result is based on the stem keyword;
determining, among the at least one keyword, user-defined limitations;
conducting an initial search based on the stem keyword;
storing, in a cache, raw search results of the initial search;
determining a plurality of filters associated with the at least one keyword, the plurality of filters being stored on the at least one storage;
searching for a pre-determined filter configuration from at least one storage;
matching the user-defined limitations to the plurality of filters;
applying the matched filters to the raw search results before determining exposed filters;
determining a ranking for each of the plurality of filters; wherein:
each of the plurality of filters are assigned a usefulness score stored on the at least one storage; and
the ranking is based on the usefulness score that is calculated from at least one of generated revenue, generated profit, and special promotions;
determining at least one filters in a first subset of the plurality of filters being parallel options;
arranging the parallel options in a group;
saving the arrangement of the parallel options in the group in a cache;
providing, based on the ranking, the first subset of the plurality of filters as exposed filters for the first user input;
saving an arrangement of the first subset of the plurality of filters for the first user input to the cache as an original saved filter configuration;
providing, to the user device, a search result based on the stem keyword and matched additional limitations;
providing, to the user device, a user interface element, when selected, displays all of the plurality of filters;
receiving a second user input from the user device, wherein the second user input is a selection of one of the plurality of filters;
in response to the second user input, applying the one of the plurality of filters;
updating the ranking of the remaining of the plurality of filters;
updating the usefulness score based on the second user input by predicting, based on the second user input, a third user input;
maintaining, by fetching from the cache, the arrangement of the first subset of the plurality of filters;
updating, to the user device, the search result; and
regenerating the plurality of filters by:
determining an applicability of the remaining filters of the plurality of filters;
determining, based on the applicability of the remaining of the plurality of filters, a second subset of the plurality of filters;
maintaining, the first subset of the plurality of filters in the maintained arrangement regardless of the applicability of the filter in the first subset of the plurality of filters;
maintaining, by fetching from the cache, the arrangement of the parallel options in the group; and
updating, to the user device, the second subset of the plurality of filters as unavailable,
wherein each regenerated filter is compared to the original saved filter configuration, and wherein a regenerated filter that was applicable in the original saved filter configuration and is no longer applicable after regeneration is displayed as unavailable and unselectable while the maintained arrangement is preserved.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“a user device”, “at least one storage”, “a cache”, “at least one storage device comprising instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”, “a user interface element”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (input/receiving/fetching/extracting information, storing information, transmitting/presenting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 19 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0042], [0049], [0066], and [0094]-[0095] of the instant Specification). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited input, receiving, extracting, stored, fetching and transmitting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 10, and 19 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 1, 10, and 19, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process/system/article of manufacture amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 19 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 19 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 10, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 and 10 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1 and 10.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17 set forth:
wherein determining a plurality of filters associated with the at least one keyword comprises: searching for a pre-determined filter configuration from the at least one storage.
wherein determining at least one filter groups comprises: determining at least one filters in the first subset of the plurality of filters being parallel options; and arranging the parallel options in one of the at least one filter groups; saving the arrangement of the parallel options in the at least one filter groups in the cache.
wherein the regenerating the plurality of filters comprises: determining, based on the applicability of the remaining of the plurality of filters, a second subset of the plurality of filters; maintaining, by fetching from the cache, the arrangement of the parallel options in the group; and updating, to the user device, the second subset of the plurality of filters as unavailable.
wherein: each of the at least one filter groups is assigned a usefulness score stored on the at least one storage.
perform the step of updating the usefulness score based on the second user input.
wherein the usefulness score is further determined by click through rate of the corresponding filter.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of providing search results and search filters to a user based on a user query. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1 and 10, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1 and 10.
Thus, dependent 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 9 and 18
Dependent claim(s) 9 and 18 sets forth:
providing, to the user device, a user interface element, when selected, displays all of the plurality of filters.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of providing search results and search filters to a user based on a user query. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a user interface element”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 10, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“providing to the user device a user interface element…displays”). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0029], [0031], and [0033] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “user interface element” is recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 9 and 18 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 13-21 of the Remarks filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, on pages 13-15, Applicant argues the claims do not recite any abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiner evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously. Moreover, Applicant’s own assertion that the claims are directed towards “providing efficient and relevant follow-up searches to users, especially when the users do not know the exact terms for the follow-up searches” in the Remarks filed 10/28/2025 and in paragraph [0003] of the Specification is itself an abstract idea and underscores the Examiner’s findings under Prong One.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on pages 16-17 the amended claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Most of the amended claim language is directed to the abstract idea. For example, as currently claimed, the argued limitations of:
“determining , from the at least one keyword, a stem keyword," "determining, from the at least one keyword, one or more additional limitations extracted from the first user input," "conducting an initial search based on the stem keyword," "matching the one or more additional limitations to the plurality of filters," "applying matched filters to the raw search results before determining exposed filters," "providing, based on the ranking, a first subset of the plurality of filters as exposed filters for the first user input," "determining an applicability of remaining filters of the plurality of filters," and "regenerating the plurality of filters, wherein the regenerated plurality of filters comprises the first subset of the plurality of filters in the maintained arrangement, wherein each regenerated filter is compared to the original saved filter configuration, and wherein a regenerated filter that was applicable in the original saved filter configuration and is no longer applicable after regeneration is displayed as unavailable and unselectable while the maintained arrangement is preserved"
do not contain any additional elements. While the argued limitations of: "storing, in a cache, raw search results of the initial search," "saving an arrangement of the first subset of the plurality of filters for the first user input to the cache as an original saved filter configuration," "providing, to the user device, a search result based on the stem keyword and matched additional limitations," recite the additional limitations of storing “in a cache”, saving “to the cache”, and providing “to the user device”, these elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of the user device/processor (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0042], [0049], [0066], and [0094]-[0095]).
Applicant argues paragraph [0004] of the Specification recites support that the claims reflect an improvement in computer functionality or another technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to either a computer, a search engine, or a user interface, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of providing search results and search filters to a user based on a user query.
The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
The problem of “providing search results and search filters to a user based on a user query”, as currently claimed, is one that arises squarely in the commercial realm, and does not rise to improving the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field. The improvement manifested by the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field, and is achieved leveraging generic computing hardware and software set forth at a high level of generality.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. As currently recited, the instant claims are directed to improving the business task of providing “providing search results and search filters to a user based on a user query” (i.e., the abstract idea).
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues on pages 17-21 of the Remarks that the amended claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea and provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting. Examiner again emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention, which include the dependent claims, are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
Lastly, Applicant contends that the Examiner has failed to provide factual evidence addressing Berkheimer. The Examiner disagrees, and points specifically to the previous rejection, as well as that updated above. As referred to both previously and below, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) outlines various computer functions that the courts have recognized as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions. Most notably, the Examiner pointed out that the claimed invention utilized receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers. As these operations have been expressly noted by the courts, the Examiner has indeed provided factual evidence to the Examiner’s findings. Berkheimer is thereby satisfied. While Applicant argues on page 20 a plurality of limitations, Examiner notes most of the argued limitations are directed to the abstract idea, and not to additional elements. Therefore, the Berkheimer analysis is not applicable to those argued limitations.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, and updated in view of the claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Accordingly, the previous 35 USC §103 rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights